You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#6176 Re: Meta New Mars » World Space Week » 2002-07-09 11:46:06
Name the "first Mars Ship" contest.
Have people submit a name for any future space ship for Mars, with a brief explanation of why it should be that name. Let everyone decide, most votes wins.
#6177 Re: Civilization and Culture » Unpleasantries - Macabre business -- » 2002-07-09 11:37:53
*Why call suicide "murder"?
Because that is what it is. Murder is the ending of a life by SOMONE, with forsight, and with intention. Isn't that ECACTLY what suicide is?
Is the scientist of old who injected *himself* with a vaccination preparation, in order to test its efficacy, possible side effects, etc., the same sort of scoundrel who subjected unwilling persons to the same sort of testing? No.
You are attempting to rationalize a behavior- this anaolgy does not apply to the ending of a life. They used to rationalize that Jews were not human, so it was okay to kill them- the planned taking of a life, by anyone, is murder, no matter how you may rationalize this act. Try establishing that we have a right to murder ourselves.
What is done to the self [voluntary death] is different from murder [done to another, resulting in their involuntary death].
Why is it different? How is it different? Just becuase one you exercsie a "choice" does not make it okay. Can I "choose" to be a slave? The act debases all life, and brings into question the role of Society- it exsists to ensure and protect youe LIFE and rights. Are you proposing that we have a right to choose when Society acts in this capacity?
*Psychological batteries of testing can be applied to a person requesting euthanasia, to determine if they are cognizant, aware, etc.
Please provide me with the OBJECTIVE critera of when, how, and why killing yourself is a sound idea.
As for "is it SOUND to end your life?" -- it could be. Suppose Settler Williams on Mars gets horribly burned in an accident; 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 80% of her body.
Then it is horrible. You can come up with a million "exceptions" that cry out for "mercy", but they are rationalizations. If you establish that we have the right to end our lives at the moment of our choosing, then you neccessarily establish that right for everyone, to be exercised at anytime. That means we, as people dealing with people, are powerless to PREVENT those who think they wish to end their life- after all it is a personal decision, and a personal right- we would in fact have to instutite (to avoid hypocrisy) laws that prevent people from interfering with someone exercising this "right".
she is aware of what's happened to her and cannot bear the thought of what she now looks like, and having to live with that...she wants to die. It's her life, it's her right to die.
Imagine Settler Williams is fat (no burns)- about 30 pounds or so. She feels bad about her self image, and hasn't had a date in a long time. She hates the way she looks. She decides to kill herself and be done with it. It's her life, right? Or what about Jimmy, studying for finals, to many units- feels like he is going to fail the expectations of his family- rather than living with this supposed shame, he kills himself. Well, it is his right, isn't it?
You argue for this world, why?
*Settler Williams' request to die because of her horrible burns and the hideous deformities which will result seems more to me an an attempt at saving herself.
Ah, to save the village, we had to destroy the village. Good lesson. Settler Williams is NOT attempting to save herself- being dead is not "saving self". The death is an immideate release from the pain- that is what she is trying to do, escape the pain. That's what suicide is Cindy.
*I can think of many instances where suicide is the mark of an incredibly sound mind.
Name ONE. The only "rational" reason for suicide is to trade your life for another, or multiple others; i.e. jumping on a gernade- at that point it is an act of SACRIFICE, not suicide.
*The pain won't effect their thinking if they are on pain medications at a level where awareness and rational thought are still possible for them.
I find it hard to accept that the pain medication would NOT affect their thought process in some manner- if it does, then they are not exactly in a frame of mind that can be considered "whole".
There's death with dignity -- and then there's QUALITY OF LIFE. I'd rather have quality of life.
What quality of life do you have if you are dead?
*What's so bad about suicide? It's not for me to decide whether another person should continue or not -- it's THEIR decision.
What if it is a sports hero? A community leader? A person your children look up to, or admire? Is this really the type of example you want set?
And I'd rather have disaffected persons [I won't pick on teenagers] throw themselves from a bridge than to run into a mall, spraying bullets at groups of people.
As would I, but that dosen't justify it in anyway.
*Most anti-euthanasia sentiments have come about from religious sentiment that persons who commit suicide go straight to hell.
True, but as you might notice, I am not refrencing God in any way. 
Each person can and should decide for themselves, based on the particulars of what's going on in their life.
So you are okay with Mothers of 12 killing themselves becuase they are bored or just tired of being Mom? I fail to see the wisdom in that.
*So we should encourage people to suffer?
No, i never even hinted at that. Are you implying our response should be, "oj, you feel bad? Well, go ahead and end it all so you won't feel bad anymore."
People cannot be encouraged to kill themselves who don't want to.
Yes, they can. We have an entire industry that encourages people to lose weight, not eat, to fit a body image that is unrealistic. People can, and are encouraged to do things that they don't neccessarily "want" to do. Who "wants" to go hungry? Peopl do it anyway though.
Who are you to say this isn't so?
A loud mouth with more sense.
*There's dignity of life and there's quality of life. Personally, I'd rather be dead than live under Taliban-like rule.
If you are dead, there is NO LIFE- there can be no quality, there can be no dignity, there is only a dead corpse (which can be disposed of by the State! 
). Apparently you have certain "standards" that you would live under- how is ending your life going to bring about those standards?
Self-love and self-preservation can be expressed in suicide.
How exactly?
I'd rather have the dignity of taking my own life than allow a group of persons [enemy] to take it from me.
If someone is intent on killing you and you beat them to the punch, they have still murdered you- they forced you to die.
Suicide is no more NOT their right than having plastic surgery or getting their teeth cleaned or plucking their eyebrows isn't their right.
Plastic surgery and teeth cleaning do not infringe on any of your other rights- death does.
#6178 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Solution to the Problem of Owning Mars - Sovereignty by a Neutral Third Party » 2002-07-09 10:32:11
You asked for a solution, I offered one- the only one that avoids outright war. Now you ask me to explain how we do THAT... you give me more credit than I deserve, but here we go:
*Who will establish this independent 3rd party?
The people going to mars, and the people sending them to mars. No one goes until this is settled.
What if 3 out of 5 nations intending to settle Mars -- or may already be there -- refuse to recognize this independent 3rd party?
Then you have no binding way to resolve disputes between them- you in effect perpetuate the same system we have on Earth. That's why nation states fight one another- they do not all recognize each others rights, and there is no authority that can hold them to a decision they do not agree with. You end up with war.
War is used becuase neither side recognizes a common third party that is able to settle the dispute. Both parties must consent to be bound by the decision prior to the hearing.
*Tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians.
Many people have been trying to exactly that, and that is the ONLY way (save genocide) that peace will be established. Right now they bicker over WHO the third party is going to be.
*But Mars won't be the U.S., and we can't expect foreign nations to accept the U.S. model of government for their settlements...what if they don't?
Foreign nations do not have to accept the US model of government- it is accepting a STANDARD model for resolving disputes between soverign states. A central authority must be establsihed that has the sole right to use force- each member state MUST NOT have this monoploy on force, otherwise there WILL be war.
Why do we as individuals listen to judges and cops- becuase they have the right to legitametly use force to execute their decision- we do not. States can tell us what to do, becuase they have the power of force over us- the federal gov'mnt can tell the states what to do becuase the feds have the power of force over the states...
just make a bucnh of independant states on mars that are all beholden to a central "World Mars" court.
*And how do you propose to do that?
Establish a critiera for "statehood", when statehood critera is met, the state is allowed full rights in the World Body, which means they get a say in what rules are placed on them by the world governing body.
#6179 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Solution to the Problem of Owning Mars - Sovereignty by a Neutral Third Party » 2002-07-09 09:16:37
However, here's the big question: How do we avoid war on Mars over land disputes? Humans usually go to war over land.
Establish an independant third party that has the power to resolve, settle, and enforce the decision of a dispute.
War is used becuase neither side recognizes a common third party that is able to settle the dispute. Both parties must consent to be bound by the decision prior to the hearing.
Each US state is a country- if California has a dispute with Nevada, the federal government can intervene or decide the dispute between us- we recognize the power of the federal government so we abide by it's ruling- just make a bucnh of independant states on mars that are all beholden to a central "World Mars" court.
#6180 Re: Civilization and Culture » Children growing up on Mars - ..problems and possible solutions... » 2002-07-09 09:12:31
[Rolls Eyes]
Then they are still experiencing the Martian Outdoors through a plate of glass.
#6181 Re: Civilization and Culture » Children growing up on Mars - ..problems and possible solutions... » 2002-07-09 08:57:16
Quote (clark @ July 09 2002,15:10)
No one will ever be in the Martian outdoors- it will always be seen through a plate of glass.*Hmmmm. You sound so certain of this.
Okay, barring massive terraforming, no one will ever be in the Martian outdoors for at least 1000 years. So the only way Mars will ever be seen is through a piece of glass (either space suit or base/rover).
Unless you know of a way that humans can breate near vacum. I would love to hear about that. :0
#6182 Re: Civilization and Culture » Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual » 2002-07-09 08:46:04
The point I was making was taking into consideration the health risks for children born and raised on Mars in the low gravity, lifetime exposure to high levels of raditiation, etc; these risks would probably be tolerable for people coming to Mars during adulthood, especially if they go back to Earth after a certain period of time, but not for raising children.
Then what point would there be in settling Mars if you can't have children for the first century? Dosen't that preclude settlement, which means that if we started today, it wouldn't be until 2102 that familes could start on Mars. If that's the case, and this is your time-frame, there is little point in a discussion that will be made meaningless by unknown future events and/or technology. ???
So yes, I do concede that at least in the early going, reproduction would have to be restricted or regulated, especially if the settlement is a government-funded base like Antartica.
Who then restricts or regulates the reproduction? Who and how is it decided that such regulations may end? I envisioned a central authority that would determine all of this- an authority that is created at the begining of any Martian settlement. Now, I have never stated how such a central authority should be constutited, or how it would represent the wishes of the population- only that a central authority can, and should regulate reproduction for the long term stability of the base. We at least seem to agree in principle, if not in totality.
This would probably take place well after the initital publicy-funded missions have taken place and research bases are established (up to a century later, perhaps?) and after the potential colonists have a firm grip on resource location/extraction, as well as procuring a reliable, "cheap" energy source that would enable the support of a constantly growing community.
Again, would we leave this decision to each individual to decide wheter or not the stability point has been reached, or would a central and nonbiased authority make that determination based on the facts- which would be the wiser course of action?
By "feasible" I mean when a signficant piece of infrastructure has been put in place, such as a full-scale dome capable of accomodating a significant number of people that haven't "arrived" yet, whether it be by birth or immigration.
But you see, your feasible might not be my feasible- and vice versa. You have certain expectations that you hope others have, but there is no guareentee of this (why anarchy fails by the way), so it behooves us to have an impartial third party that can decide for us.
The people in power may not want people to have children (due to the fact they may not want kids themselves, or don't want to see the colony's resources devoted to raising children), although environmental conditions may permit it, and then you'l have serious
dissention within the community. That would be bad.
A central authority is NOT a dictatorship- a central authority is our own damn government that we democratically (sort of) elect. How the central authority is created, operated, and regulated itself is a seperate issue. I am discussing the specfic issue of wheter or not martian reproduction should be regulated.
Imagine a desperate parent-to-be allowing all the crops in the greenhouses to freeze because they can't abide by the "unreasonable" reproductive laws that are being enforced upon them.
Imagine food riots, water riots, power riots, air riots- all for the sake of our children... becuase too many were born and so we can't support everyone... A Parent is much worse than a parent to be, by any scale.
Best to establish some sort of free-market system, and let the people decide for themselves when it's best to have babies based on how much it "costs" to have them. .
Yes, much better to only allows those with enough mooney to have children- because applying a capitalistic "free-market" system to reproduction is ethical and equitable... The ability to have children should not be dictated by your socio-economic status, that is arbitrary and only serves to expand the role of economic slavery. I am familiar with KSR's proposal, and it is just a repugnant. It reduces life to a ticket ride.
Remember that having children is an ingrained instinct, however irrational it may be; and if we are talking about people making a *permanent* move to Mars to make a new life like colonists in the past, they WILL have kids sooner or later.
I DO remember that reproduction is ingrained- this whole discussion is ABOUT that! Since it is so ingrained, it behooves us to look for means to control and regulate it so it is not our own undoing. We are THINKING animals, which means we are able to master ourselves, our instincts- to overcome whatever problem we face- that is our advantage. We ignore our birth-right if we do not take control of this.
At some point, however, a permanent community will likely be established (provided that the human race continues to advance technology-wise in this regard), and the time will
eventually come when the first children will be born on Mars.
Is it wise to allow one selfish individual to make that monumental decision for all of us?
But at this point, I think it's useful to consider the fact that if they've made it this far (creating a hospitable environment in order to have children in the first place), that making
accomodations for 10 8-year-olds, and so on, really shouldn't be such a difficult task as opposed to all the other things that would have to be performed to carve out an existence on Mars.
One, they will be living in a tin can (or dome) which is little more than a buried box with some windows. This is not magic- this is just pressurized environments. Two, having children living in these conditions is incredibly dangerous to the ENTIRE colony. Adults can think rationaly, there can be certain expectations on what they will and will not do- children are inquisitive by nature- it is not outside the realm of possibility that a child gets into the wrong thing and the colony is threatened- so children would have to be heavily supervised to make sure they didn't get into anything they shouldn't (could you imaghine a kid with a gun in a dome...)
However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the colonists could end up agreeing in a democratic fashion to regulate the times when to have their kids...if this makes things easier as a whole, and they agree to it; I don't see this being a problem as long this is carried out in a reasonable, logical manner.
Ahh, but the problem with this manner is that each individual will vote based on biased selfish desires- so everyone who wants kids will vote to have kids, irregardless of the objective reality of what the colony can support. Isn't a third party, without the bias, a better judge?
Here on Earth, central "authorities" have a poor record in doing things in a reasonable fashion, so again, my opinion is to leave it up to the colonists themselves.
individuals have a poor record as well.
Just because an Earth immigrant has a "proven track record" doesn't mean he or she will do well on Mars. They might end up hating it so much that they become depressed and unproductive, and have to return home in short order, which wouldn't very efficient, either.
True, but just becuase they are born on Mars dosen't mean they will be more productive either. However, with a track record of any kind, you can at least make a somewhat informaed guess as to what will happen. I guess it is a matter of how much you like to gamble.
Nobody in their right mind would want to have a kid during the "tin-can" stage.
No one in their right mind should want to live in a pressurized environment in a near vacum bathed in deadly radiation on a world with a more than likely debilitating gravity.
Yes, when my hypothetical first permanent colony is in the process of being built, I would say that some sort of general consensus would have to come about to determine when the intitial "go-ahead" will be given to begin having kids, and if it comes to the actual survival of the settlers, yes, I concede that reproductive regulation may be necessary.
Thank you. One down, 6.4 billion to go... 
#6183 Re: Civilization and Culture » Children growing up on Mars - ..problems and possible solutions... » 2002-07-09 08:10:04
That would be a great idea, actually, having let's say, four or five suits available in the smaller sizes, so that kids can be taken out on field trips on occasion...how else will they be able to learn about the Martian outdoors, etc..
No one will ever be in the Martian outdoors- it will always be seen through a plate of glass.
My guess would be that they pile the kids into a rover and take a field trip- kids have a tendancy to get lost or hurt when left to their own devices.
Also, I would imagine that there would be quite a few telemetry robots that could be used to explore Mars (like the last Mars Rover).
#6184 Re: Civilization and Culture » Unpleasantries - Macabre business -- » 2002-07-09 08:00:12
I advocate voluntary euthanasia, i.e. a person's right to die [provided the person is of sound mind and in possession of full cognizance during such a request]. I'd hope that any human society on Mars would recognize this right and allow its practice.
If we hold that murder is wrong, or should I say, the taking of a life, is wrong- how can we reasonably justify that the murder of self is less wrong?
Cindy, you suggest that a person be of "sound mind, etc."- is it "sound" to end your life? Sanity is usualy determined by examining wheter or not an individual is engaged in self-destructive behavior- suicide is pretty final in its self-destruction. So how can anyone who chooses their own death be considered to have a sound mind?
Of course there is the emotional argument, the "death with dignity" point of view, and I grant that this is a very noble argument. However, the fact remains that if someone is facing severe pain caused by a debilitating disease, then there is very little possibility that they could be thinking in a stable frame of mind- the pain affects their thinking, which means they can never qualify for the "sound mind" critera.
Also, if you allow for the "right to die", you allow for ALL suicides. Who are you or I to decide wheter or not someone should continue or not- imagine the throngs of disaffected teenagers that throw themselves from bridges- and we as a society would have to defend that action- it is grotesque.
Right now we consider the taking of our own life as justifiable when we are faced with overwhelming and debilitating life changes brought on by pain- how far will this slide before "overwhelming depression" becomes a justifiable reason?
How long before people are "encouraged" to take their own life instead of dealing, or facing the pain they may be subjected to- how long before we decide that euthanasia is really "okay" and then start to encourage people to kill themselves in order to save on the cost of keeping them alive.
No, you have no right to kill yourself, anymore than someone else has a right to kill you. Your life is sacrosanct- either life has the dignity of life, or it dosen't. Choose.
#6185 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Solution to the Problem of Owning Mars - Sovereignty by a Neutral Third Party » 2002-07-09 07:47:03
I have proposed a regime that will allow settlers to own their homes and businesses and enough territory to support themselves. That's "fair."
No, you haven't. You have set up a system whereby the current model of repression through economic slavery will continue. You further ensure this eventuality by establishing defacto control of Mars for all rich developed nations.
You mention that poor nations can band together- a group of poor nations is still poor when compared to the wealth of ONE industrialized nation- and a group of poor nations still couldn't compete becuase their independant soverignty would more than likely result in infighting as they seek to find their "own" way to develop mars.
You further state that martian settlers can take land that is not leased- how would that be a possibility if all the land is leased? You made no stipulation that any amount of land would be reserved for Native use. You also neglect the reality of the situation- you state that those who locate on leased land will have to work out a payment arrangement with the martians who settle on the lease-holders land- fine, what happens when all the readily available sources of water are secured by lease-holders? What about all the rich available sources of ore? Most of the resources neccessary for a functioning martian settlement will be scouted and bought and leased PRIOR to any martian settlement- everything the settlement will need will be owned... why? Becuase any martian settlers that go to mars represent the ONLY market for martian resources- that is what make the rescources valuable in the first place.
Since the rescources are owned- they now must be purchased from Earth- congratulations, you have now codified indentured servitude.
History is such a poor teacher.
#6186 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Extraterrestrial Civilizations - Isaac Asimov's predictions vs"Rare Earth » 2002-07-08 15:04:37
One data point is not enough to establish that we are the norm, for all we know, we are the mother of all universal abberations.
For every reason you can think of that would support that there is more than ONE intelligent species in the universe, I can point how that same reason precludes such a possibility.
I somewhat subscribe to the idea that few things in the universe are truly unique.
Humans are... so far. So for all intents and purposes, we are the exception to this rule.
Considering the variety of life on Earth that has developed some kind of organ that is sensitive to light, and since having eyes is very helpful to survival, I don't think it would necessarily be rare for life to develop eyes in some capacity.
This may be a function of living on our planet, there is no reason to assume for one second that was is true here is true elsewhere. It's like imagining how people in Africa live based on your living habits.
These lifeforms might not see light in our spectrum, but they'd probably still have sight.
There exsist numerous life forms without sight here on this planet- it is by no measn certain for an alien.
And if there are beings out there who are at least as intelligent as we are, there's a good chance they'll have scientific curiosity the way we do.
Why? They could be completely intelligent but devoid of any true scientific inquiry- there are many "intelligent" humans who display this trait afterall, so why not an entire species?
It could be possible that most of the life in the universe could be more tolerant of radiation than us.
And the opposite could be true just as well- furthermore, maybe we are the only "intelligent" species that is hardened to radiation.
And there is life on Earth that can thrive in high radiation environments, so I don't think it's out of the question that intelligent life could evolve in high radiation environments.
There is a lot that goes into the evolution of intelligence- how in your mind would a highly radioactive environment HELP intelligence evolve? In order to protect itself from radiation, an animal would have to know about the radiation- the radiation would ave to kill the slower, dumber ones, while sparing the smarter one- that's a lot like expecting a snow-storm to be continually discerning on its victims...
Well we know of at least one planet where predators are a common occurance. There's no reason why it couldn't happen on other worlds.
True, but there is no reason to believe that it does happen on other worlds. Maybe the universe is full of cows and grass.
If such life is carbon based, there's a good chance that by time intelligent life arises that can utilize fossil fuels, the fuels will be there.
Please establish how you can come to this conclusion. Your statement also implies that there is a "time-frame" for the development of intelligence (your statement implies sometime after the creation of fossil fuels)- how do you know what that time frame is?
There might be some kind of impediment that could prevent the development of fossil fuels on certain planets, but going on the assumption that we aren't unique, if it can happen on this planet it can probably happen on others.
A lack of evidence can only lead us to assume that we are unique. Or we could just simply BELIEVE... but matters of faith are best left up to the individual and should be recognized as such.
#6187 Re: Civilization and Culture » Children growing up on Mars - ..problems and possible solutions... » 2002-07-08 14:46:41
Space suits are just layers of material inflated to a certain psi with some life support equipment built in.
And a nuclear reactor is a fancy way of heating a cup of coffee...
Is it wise to reduce our technical milestones to basic generalities? If we do so, we neccessarily neglect the profound complexity of the actual undertaking of human settlement of Mars. Not only that, you discredit any rational discussion regarding humans to mars becuase it reduces the possible problems to supposedly "simple" solutions.
Ingenuity cannot be forced. Innovation does not have a timetable (unless we discuss cars ).
A space suit is a little more than fabric with some psi and some more fabric- to reduce it to such is to render any sensible discussion meaningless. ???
#6188 Re: Meta New Mars » World Space Week » 2002-07-08 14:36:00
Signuture signing contest.
Have interested New Mars members collect signitures (real) of people who want a manned mission to mars- have them mail in the final results at the end of the contest- any individual, or group of individuals working together with the most signitures wins. All submitted lists are forwarded to the politicians.
This allows people to work alone, or in groups, or in any manner they can figure out while furthering the goals of the Mars Society- it should be a win-win for all.
#6189 Re: Civilization and Culture » Children growing up on Mars - ..problems and possible solutions... » 2002-07-08 14:13:31
A spacesuit is a technological marvel- it is more than fabric- and it needs to be more than fabric in a near vacum bathed in radiation... a space suit is a small spaceship. Making clothes or clogs is one thing- making a space suit- it took5000 years of science to make that possible- and a whole heck of a lot of resources and special factories to produce each custom one- on Mars you have to start considering how to mass-produce them...
#6190 Re: Meta New Mars » AN IDEA FOR THE FLASHLINE FMARS - message board for FMARS » 2002-07-08 14:09:20
Would it be possible to set-up a message board section so people can dialogue with the FMARS researchers?
It seems that seeting up a message board simmilar to New Mars would encourage interest in the Mars Society and FMARS in general, it also acts as a means for every member of the Mars Society to feel they are a part of this program.
This could be linked to classroom exercises, or a tie in with the media.
In other words, free publicity- and it serves to establish wether the internet would make a useful communication tool for future Mars-nauts by trying this real world experiment.
Just a positive thought in otherwise pesimistic mind.
#6191 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle? » 2002-07-08 11:40:09
Star Wars is simply the means with which to perpetuate the status quo, i.e- US military supremacy, and by extension, Western Industrialized Supremacy of Earth. The US has mainatained it's super-power status through the it's extension of soft as well as hard power. It has maintained relative stability through the policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). MAD is a cocept that works by imposing a huge cost on any group if they try to directly challenge the US in terms of power. It is "rational" becuase the price of failure is final, and the price for victory is uncertain. MAD is a game of ultimate "for keeps".
Star Wars does not do away with MAD, in fact, it assures it. The only measn to overcome a Star Wars based defensive shield is with massive oversaturation- the only groups capable of that are industrialized nations- all of which bow to US supremacy. Now, these industrialized nations could attack- but that was true before Star Wars- so it is the same game we have been playing (and playing well) for the last 50 years.
The only people who can't break through Star Wars are smaller, less developed countries with limited nuclear capability. They are effectively left-out of the "nuclear club" becuase they have a weapon that has been rendered useless becuase it cannot overcome the defenses. It makes Iraq, Iran, North Korea, et al. impotent to threaten or cajople us in any way- which means we no longer have to consider their interests when we deal with them. it's no accident that the permanent members of the Security Council are the major nuclear powers.
Can a more effecient measn be used to deliver a nuclear weapon to american soil- of course. But that takes quite a bit of technological sophistication and logistcal support to do that- which is just as limiting as having ICBM's to deliver a nuke. Furthermore, the ability of a group to carry out an attack is small, and would do very little (overall) to affect US policy- which is what an attacking Nation would want (senseless destruction is not a hallmark of most nations, especially of this magnatude). The missle defense would primarily protect our military as it does whatever it is ordered to do- it's hard to carry out modern military campaigns if any time you concentrate your men they get vaporized...
Missle defense is good, from a US point of view if for no other reason than it further establishes the status quo (good for us), which means we can still railroad over other people to maintain our way of life since they lack the ability to effectively strike back at us.
Nuclear weapons are like sledge hammers- they are only needed in severe situations (like end of the world kinda stuff)- other means of destruction exsist. All of this measn that the US cannot legitmetly retaliate to a One Strike with massive reprisal- we would be guilty of killing so many innocents (even in reprisal it is wrong) that it would be intolerable.
Much better to shoot down a few missles and then engae in standard conflict resolution, instead of replying with our own nukes.
Think about this response- Some crazy just blew up LA- so in response, we are going to destroy the Crazies entire country- including all the people who are nto involved... it's stupid and unproductive.
#6192 Re: Meta New Mars » Titles system » 2002-07-08 10:18:07
I wouldn't mind "Queen of the Lizard People".
Or barring that, how about "Mr.Know-it-all-and-has-to-prove-it" for me and anyone else who posts more than 500.
#6193 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » A Solution to the Problem of Owning Mars - Sovereignty by a Neutral Third Party » 2002-07-08 10:14:15
The Mars Bank is inadquete and unequal as described. It favors the Industrialy Developed nations which have the funds to purchase the tracts of land on Mars. The Mars Bank is also biased towards Industrialized Nations since they at present are the only ones even capable of considering the exploitation or exploration of the Red Planet.
Now, the process as described, would have the Martian Bank invest the funds used to aquire lease rights on Mars to help fund settlement and exploration of Mars- a noble goal, however, who would they send to Mars? How would they decide? It would seem they would be sending people who want to settle mars- and I'm sure these people could find a job exploiting the resources that the Nations of Earth have leased from Mars Bank- but being the inhabitants of Mars, wouldn't they be exploiting the resources for their own benefit but paying Earh Nations for that right since the nations are leasing it from the Mars Bank- what do the Martians pay with if all the resources are leased? Whatever the individuals get paid will be a pittance in comparison to what the raw materials would be worth, or what it would cost to build something on Mars- they wouldn't be able to sell the raw resources since those already belong to the Nations of Earth- they would be stuck for the first 50 years with a lease that prevented them from making any money (the martians)- and no nation would invest unless they could reasonably expect to get people on Mars and exploiting the lease- so it is easy to imagine a clause whereby the lease does not come into effect until people are in a position to exploit the resources.... which further leads to the problem of a nation or several nations just buying up large tracts of mars and never sending anyone there just to prevent others from exploiting it.
The plan leaves out 3/4 of humanity becuase they are too poor and only serves to perpetuate the status quo.
The universe belongs to us all, or it belongs to a select few- which is it?
#6194 Re: Civilization and Culture » Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual » 2002-07-08 09:55:34
Well met Byron,
Of course not...the point I'm attempting to make is that in the early going, at least, that reproduction will not be a major factor in a fledging Martian settlement, for various reasons discussed earlier, such as adverse health affects, the lack of resources for raising children, ad infintum...
If there are adverse health affects that preclude having children, dosen't that also preclude having colonists? The point being that any health affects that children might be exsposed to would neccessarily mean that the original colonists would be exsposed to as well. I am of course assuming that such health affects will be solved prior or very shortly after a martian base is established. If the health risks are mitigated, then people would be free to have children unencumbered- it is exactly this freedom that could lead to an instability due to the strain caused by unepexected people who must be supported.
For the first couple of decades or so, I believe that close to 100% of a colony's growth will come from immigration, and once the community reaches a certain "critical mass," (who knows what that may be, however..that bridge will have to be crossed when we get there,) then it will be feasible/practical to begin having children.
Please clarify, "feasible"- are you suggesting that individuals will see the appropriate time to have children? Wouldn't it be a wiser course of action to have a central authority DECIDE when that "feasible" moment has occured? Or should individuals be allowed to make that determination on their own- which means that they could reach that conclusion at any time- irregardles of an objectivce reality.
The way I see it, this will progress on a gradual curve...beginning with a few children at first, and gradually progressing to greater numbers of offspring as time progresses.
Ah, but even ONE child results in an entire population being "stuck" on Mars. If for some reason the former earthlings need to leave, they might be able- the Martians natives will more than likely not have that option (physical limitations and immunity to diseases lacking). While it dosen;t prevent people from leaving, it unneccsarily complicates our flexibility.
Some will have kids as soon as possible, others will chose to wait, creating a curved distribution of children of varying ages.
Which is ineffecient- it means you are required to provide adquete care for all ages at all points- so sometimes you have 10 tenm year olds, other times you have 3 ten year olds- but the infrastruture has to exsist to support 30 or 300 ten year olds to cope with any changes in the distribution- all of which takes up valuable resources on mars- is this really the best way? Considering the level of technology we now have available, what would be wrong with instutiting "breeding" periods? It is only an accident of evolution that women have random fertility periods which has helped develop our social instutions (which technology is undoing)- why stick with an antiquated system developed for Earth style living?
Chances are that as soon as the kids reach, let's say, the age of 10 or 12 (earth years), they will begin assisting the adults in the various life-critical activities required to be performed within the colony, such as tending to the crops alongside their parents and so on and so forth.
So for ten years they are unproductive. For another ten they would only be half as productive as they learn the various sciences. Then another ten where they specialize in a specfic field. 30 years of no semi-usefulness with no guareentee of productivity,versus 30 years of a grown Terran adult with a proven record in their field BEFORE they come to Mars.
As many point out, there is little room for "dead weight" on Mars- is it wise to continually roll the dice with children?
What I meant by this statement is when the conditions for raising children becomes a bit more tolerable, so to speak, the natural instinct to have kids will kick in, and "traditional" families will come into existance...but I really don't see women having 4, 6 or 8 kids like we see in some 3rd world countries.
Settlers going to Mars are ostenabily doing so to start a new life- which usually entails a family. Maybe they won't have litters, but even if they are allowed to have 1 or 2 at the begining- each child is one more that must be supported- take a colony of 1000, if only 250 women (figure 50/50 on man woman ratio) have children (250 assumes half women have kids)- the colony now must support 250 PEOPLE who will do very little but consume resources. It only spirals from there. Also consider that people will be living in sterile cans, I can only imagine what the life expectancy is going to be...
How many "professionals" do you know that have large, rambunctious families? Most
have one or two kids, sometimes 3, but more than that, it's really quite rare, and it will be even more rare on Mars.
These proffesionals may be busy, but what will they do in their off time? Again, these are settlers going to make a new life...
Sure, there will be exceptions to the rule, and perhaps a top limit of 3 or 4 kids
would have to put into place, but this is unlikely. (Notice I said unlikely, which different than saying it will never happen.)
So then you agree that limits can be placed and enforced on reproduction of individuals if Society deems it. The number is always open for consideration- but the issue of wether or not your reproduction can be controlled is not (you at least seem to agree with me that it can be controlled legitamitly)
We know that Mars has a tremendous amount of water, and not all of it is frozen, as there's evidence of *liquid* water deep underground...hopefully the colonists will be smart enough to locate their community in a place where they could simply drill down and extract liquid water in copious quantities.
So then reproduction rate is tied directly to resource aquisition- therfore, it would behoove us to get the resources first before we allow the reproduction- all of this supports the theory that reproduction should be planned and controled by a central agency that can coordiante and establish what is available and what is possible to support any future population.
As for energy, wouldn't you think that the future Martians would have nuclear or fusion energy at their disposal?
Fusion does not exsist in a form that humans can use (other than the sun). And nuclear is FAR from free- it requires a level of technologicaly advanced infrastructure that makes nuclear far from cheap and easy.
.yes, it's unreasonable to think that you will see "breakway" communities develop right off the bat, but once the original settlement reaches a certain population level, I'm sure there will be "surplus" people to spare to start a new settlement,
If all population orignaly comes from immigration ( you said 100%) at first- how can there ever be "surplus" population? Surplus implies "extra" and unused people- if they are extra, why are they on Mars to begin with? The only surplus would come from unexpected immigration- or birth- so new communities would have to be readied and built for uncontrolled reproduction- what I am suggesting is a solution to avoid that unneccessary action.
as time progresses and the cost of space travel falls, which it certainly will, the pace of immigration to Mars will increase, and the new people will certainly be graceful to establish new places to live in conjuntion with the "natives" who know what they're up against...
But what will these people be doing on Mars? If they keep sending people, eventually there will be a sizeable potion that will come solely to start a life on Mars- which includes staring a family, which leads to uncontrolled reproduction and the eventual death spiral for a base.
I'm quite suprised to see this rather blunt statement from you...you really think that a child born on Mars will preclude a person coming from Earth??
Yes. Every person in space has to be supported with the neccessities of life, all of which have to be manufactured by man- not by nature. There can be only a finite carrying capacity of a base- each person in that base reduces the total available extra resources that can be used to support someone else- the children born on the base are no different. That means every child on Mars means one less person from earth can go to the base and be supported.
The more people born on Mars, the more Mars will be developed, and therefore, additional opportunities will be created for Earth immigrants in response to greater numbers of Martians born,
I acknoledge this point, however the same opportunity can be generated through immigration alone- which also has less of the negative consquences associated with reproduction. So why even allow reproduction?
#6195 Re: Not So Free Chat » First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ? » 2002-07-08 08:18:15
If one believes a Supreme Being created everything...well, who created It?
If we hold that the Supreme Being is the creator of EVERYTHING, that would neccessarily include itself- otherwise, the Being that created the Supreme Being that created Everything is the actual SUPREME Being.In my mind, this is an irrelavant issue since the concept of the Supremem Being is what is the question- who the Progenitor of all is won't help us any.
How did It come into being?
I would imagine that It came into Being becuase to do otherwise was yo Not Be- a contradiction in terms- how can a Being Not Be? Either It IS, or It IS NOT. If It IS, then the question is, what is It when it is Being.
What we see and experience is what It is in the act of Being.
I like to think of it as Us being in the belly of the Whale, or God.
If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions: How did the process start?
The process, or life started, becuase there are only two states of Being, just like the Supreme Being can only be either Being, or Not- life can only Be, or Not Be. If life did not start, then this line of questioning would be moot- for none us would be here to ask. Since life started, all we can derive is that life exsists- that is the fact upon which we can conclude.
Why it exsists implies that life has a purpose, that there is a reason- the facts do not support that there is a reason. The facts only support that life exsists becuase it can. "the why" is humanity trying to make some MEANING out of all of it- to better understand everything- but the meaning is arbitrarty- it dosen't exsist.
How could something come from nothing?
What is nothing? Nothing is the absence of Something. If you can have Nothing, then you hold that at some point you can have Something. So either you have Nothing, or you have Something- if Nothing, then it is a moot point- If Something, then it obviously resulted in US.
The law of thermodynamics holds that energy can be neither created not destroyed- having something spring from nothing violates this fundamental law that supposedly governs our universe. Maybe it is better to think of it as "Always was" instead of nothing or something...
#6196 Re: Intelligent Alien Life » Extraterrestrial Civilizations - Isaac Asimov's predictions vs"Rare Earth » 2002-07-08 07:44:33
But you could be right to that life is extremely rare considering that most life that develops near galactic cores will almost certainly be wiped out by the chaos that happens there. We're lucky in that we developed near the rim of the galaxy.
Maybe life can only develop out on the rim, which further reduces the possibility of life or intelligent life.
Then there is the question of how often life "spontaneously" begins. Where and how does life begin? We have yet to create life from inorganic compounds, as is currently believed that life first started- how often are the conditions reached to help this transistion?
If there are intelligent species other than human- how many even care about space?
How many have eyes to behold the night sky? If they only see with by hearing, dosen't that almost preclude them from looking at the universe, and exploration in the same way as us?
How many intelligent species have the life span or technology to help their life span to make space travel even feasible?
How many intelligent species have the biological constution to survive the radiation or other dangers of space- what if leaving their atmosphere instantly fries them becuase they have no tolerance to radiation?
How many intelligent species develop beyond the stone age, or the bronze age, or the middle ages? Any number of reasons could lock them into this "era" for perputity- we don't know if we just got lucky in regards to developing this far. We have 5,000 years of recorded human history, but it took us hundreds of thousands of years to get there, ON TOP OF the millions of years of biological and social evolution.
How many of these worlds hold predatory animals that would act as a catalyst for evolution to develop intelligence?
How many of these worlds had the planatary development similar to ours which allowed for the formation of hydro-crabons or other sources of cheap and abundant energy which allows them to enter a technological age such as ours? (Oil came from the Dino's- no dino's, less oil)
#6197 Re: Civilization and Culture » Children growing up on Mars - ..problems and possible solutions... » 2002-07-08 07:28:20
Just thought I mention something:
ust think of all the things that Martian children will be able to do in their native habitat due to the .38 g. After all, the low g will make everyone a "superman," able to perform physical feats that Earth kids can only dream of doing. Build a decent-sized halfpipe for young skateboarders, and just watch them perform astonishing feats of aerial acrobatics...perhaps the Martian kids will then consider themselves "privilaged" to live in Martian g, as opposed to living in the crushing gravity of Earth.
Children born on Mars will not be "superhuman" compared to Earthling equivalents. Mars children will be exsposed by and large to a .38 gravity for their entire life- their muscles will adapat to that stress (unless extra stress is added)- which means they will behave in a .38 gravity the same way we behave in a 1.0 gravity. We live in 1.0 so anything less allows us to be stronger than we are- it's like going from 100 pound weights to 38 pound weights- the mars kids will not have the same benefit- thats why they can't come back to Earth- it would be like going from 38 pound weights to 100 pounds for them.
Martians, left to their own, will never be stronger than Earthlings, and Earthlings will have an easier time in their environment.
Also, I'm not quite convinced that children would resent their inability to play certain sports- children are pretty adaptable- define their world and they more often than not find a way to live within that world. We have a hard time imagining life without certain sports or certain games- but these games are just that- games- as long as the fundamental principles of what a game or activity means can be reproduced on Mars, there shouldn't be any "problems".
#6198 Re: Civilization and Culture » Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual » 2002-07-08 07:08:57
For one thing, you have to have a fertility rate of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain your current population, and this rate would have to pushed up to 3.5 or 4 children per couple to create any kind of exponential domestic growth curve.
So an interesting side question, should only those who WILL reproduce be allowed to settle mars? That is, deny or cause those who are less likely to reproduce from coming to mars.
As for the math of 2.1 babies per woman just to maintain a steady population- is a martian settlement even feasible if you have 50% of the population (the children) producing nothing?
In the early days of Martian settlement, I really don't see woman having this many babies enmasse.
Then when? What of those who choose to do have babies "en masse"? Should they be allowed, or tolerated, when such behavior could unfairly tax the ability of the settlement to provide adequate neccessities to all?
The young colony would be made up of highly ambitious, hard-working and intelligent
people such as scientists, engineers, researchers and a myriad of other specialists who would likely be working 12-14 hours a day on a continuous basis...having children would probably be quite low on their personal priority lists,
Sounds like our current living environment for many people... and they still have children. Having children is a highly irrational and purely instinctual behavior that has it's own "rewards" programmed into the very act of reproducing- from conception to birth to rasing a child.
But as the new settlement grows, having children will indeed become more common, and once the infrastructure is put into place (large, spacious domes, surplus-producing greenhouses, "unlimited" water and energy, etc) the fertility rate could very well rise above 2.1, creating "domestic" growth.
Where exactly is the "unlimited" water and energy? All water must be manufactured- processed from martian sources and converted into a useable form by humans- all of which takes energy. Energy must be used to power everything from air manufacture, water manufacture, power for computer systems, lights, heating, cooling, etc. Yes, energy might be abundant, but not unlimited. Even using solar power, the so called "free energy"- there is a requirment to create the neccessary infrastructure to produce the solar power- all of whihc takes resources and energy to create- which means that it is certainly not free, and not unlimited.
How can the settlement "grow" if no one has any children? Immigration? Then why even allow people to have children?
It is very unlikely that the colony would ever have to resort to actual birth restrictions, and if things do become a bit too crowded, wouldn't you think some of the "excess" people would then go out and form other communities?
How realistic is it to assume that people can just up and start a new community when each community needs specfic skills for the settlement to function? You have to have engineers, mechanics, geolgists, medics, nutrionists, biologists, etc.- The new community would have to have all the neccessary people with the neccessary skills in addition to all of the infrastructure to support them and anyone else that is going to live there. Where do these people and resources come from? Considering the limitations caused by this neccessity, isn't it prudent to make sure the settlement has the people to start a new base BEFORE the need to start a new base arises?
Same thing on Mars...even if people are restricted to pressure-controlled environments...a
Building a pressure controlled environemnt with all of the electronics neccessary requires a huge amount of resources or a very large technologicaly advanced manufacturing base on Mars- again, that means you have to make sure you can build new one FIRST before you can allow people to have children.
IMHO...it's very unlikely that laws or rules restricting the actual number of children one can have will ever come to pass on Mars...
Let me put it another way, Every child born on Mars is one less scientist from earth that is denied the opportunity to go to mars. Other than science, Mars has nothing to offer Earth in terms of "resources".
#6199 Re: Civilization and Culture » Reproductive rights - Society vs. Individual » 2002-07-05 12:41:11
It's likely that most people who live in a Mars colony will limit the number of kids they have without the need of government commissars sending their goons to force abortions on women who happen to get pregnant one too many times.
One, no one has suggested forced abortions. Two, relying on the asupices of the population to control reproduction to tolerable levels sounds unwise for planning a life in a vacum where all neccessities for life must be manufactured or imported.
One only has to look at the tendency in highly industrialized countries where womens' rights are respected that most families don't have many children anyhow.
It has more to do with education than rights (but womens rights does lead to greater education for women). The fact will remain that those going to Mars to start a new life on Mars will want to have children- millions of years of evolution atest to this one basic fact- the only things that succeed are the ones that reproduce (silly point, I know). is it wise to have uncontrolled and unchecked reproduction if doing so could cause the close system support to fail?
If something of a population problem does develop on Mars, concerned anarchists can merely take their cause to the people. Most people, particularly those who will live on Mars, won't be so idiotic
Waiting for the problem to develop is exactly the wrong attitude- a space colony must be planned- everything m,ust be integrated first, not afterwards. There is little room for waste on mars, which means there needs to be greater effeciency- the type of effencicy that allows for planned population expansion and for a stable environment in which to support any new people.
Why is it that people can see the wisdom in limiting the number of people IMIGRATING to a mars colony, but not being born in one? It is fundamentaly the same thing.
Anyhow, who'd want to migrate to a colony that has an anti-individualist gov't?
Then why go to mars? The environment forces the individual to be second to the group by neccessity. Security is linked directly to the environment, which means you have less freedoms becuase your actions will more directly impact others rights (as compared to here on Earth).
You can have much more freedom in an open field where you and I can maintain 100 yards distance at all times- but that all changes when those same 100 yards are in an enclosed environment where we both are sharing the same air manufactured from the same machines.
#6200 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » The Succession of Empires - Mars will trump the U.S. » 2002-07-05 12:01:18
5% of Americans have passports.
that means 95% of American do not have the documentation neccessary to leave the country.